To be fair to Ed Murray, he wasn't the only mayoral candidate to say one thing about low-wage retailers at a June 17 forum, and then say a completely different thing when Mayor McGinn actually tries to act on their stated principles a month later. Peter Steinbrueck has stepped in it pretty deep too.

While Steinbrueck's flip-flop lacks Murray's specificity (it was Murray who suggested using "street vacation" requests as a means of influencing non-union retailers like Whole Foods, but who then accused McGinn of "usurping" and "subverting" the process by embracing that exact tactic), nobody can match Steinbrueck for the passion in which he contradicts himself. Steinbrueck self-righteously denounced the mayor's actions as "hypocritical," "abusive," and "perhaps illegal," angrily telling the Seattle Times' Danny Westneat: “You can’t use the land-use codes to single out one grocery store and hold it up because you don’t like the wages they’re paying.”

Yet that's not what he said back on June 17. Remember, the question to the panelists was: "As mayor, what would you do to keep low-road retailers like Walmart, Whole Foods, and WinCo, out of our city to protect union jobs?" Steinbrueck forcefully replied:

"I think the mayor of Seattle can do something about Walmart. I think there is a way to approach this which is to recognize that Walmart is the world's largest predator species, with underpaid, exploited workers, cheap products that are made by child workers in other countries—we can say no to Walmart, to big box retail of this sort of exploitive, predator nature species. And I can say that as a land use expert and architect and planner, there are ways to use the land use code. We've used it for high rises and big commercial offices in South Lake Union, we can use it at Walmart as well to discourage this type of development. There is a big box store swindle book that you should all read: The Big Box Store Swindle Book. Take a look at it. And I think we just say no to Walmart, we don't want you until you get your practices that support worker wages and worker benefits in order."

On June 17, Steinbrueck tells a union audience that "there are ways to use the land use code" to say "no" to retailers until they get their "worker wages and worker benefits in order." But on July 23 he definitively tells the anti-union Seattle Times* that “You can’t use the land-use codes to single out one grocery store and hold it up because you don’t like the wages they’re paying."

Wow. Way to highlight your self-proclaimed credentials as "a land use expert," Peter.

Of course, Steinbrueck never mentions Whole Foods specifically in his June 17 rant. But that's not the point. These are statements of principle of what you can or cannot do (and should or should not do) with land use laws "to discourage this type of development." And these two statements completely contradict each other.

As for the other major candidate in the race, as he has often done at these forums, Bruce Harrell gives an eloquent, compassionate, likable answer, while avoiding the question entirely. There's no hint from Harrell about what he would specifically do as mayor to keep such stores out of Seattle, so there's no way for him to contradict his subsequent critique of McGinn's alley vacation maneuver (though calling it "very shallow in substance," is a tad ironic.)

The most coherent and straightforward response to the question, however, came from Charlie Staadecker:

"This might not be the answer everyone wants to hear, but it is a very slippery slope to determine what hospitals can come in, what retailers can come in, and what businesses can come in. As long as they are following state laws and municipal laws, I don't think it is the government who can say 'you are not welcome here.' As long as you are following the laws, you are welcome here. What the important part is, is for government to partner with these businesses, and say these are the things that our people are looking for, these are the types of businesses that we want to encourage."

Staadecker went on to advise the questioner that if she's not getting enough hours from her current employer, she needs to look for another job. You don't have to agree with Staadecker's philosophy (and I don't), but you gotta admire his forthrightness. Because yeah, that's not what the audience at this union-sponsored forum wanted to hear.

Anyway, judge for yourself. You can watch all the candidates' responses (only about a minute each), starting with the question, beginning at about 35:40 in the video below:

* I in know way meant to imply that Danny Westneat is "anti-union." Unlike me (as has been frequently pointed out), Danny is a dues-paying union member. I was merely taking a shorthand dig at Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen and his editorial board for their relentlessly anti-union rhetoric.